Interesting Wikpedia passage

[outrun]

"Balance of power
Advocates for the right to bear arms often point to previous totalitarian regimes that passed gun control legislation, which was later followed by confiscation. Totalitarian governments such as Fascist Italy during World War II, as well as Communist regimes such as the former U.S.S.R. and the People's Republic of China are some examples of this.
This is not political. However, I found the last paragraph EXTREMELY fascinating...

"There is not, however, a directly causal relationship between gun control and totalitarianism. A number of countries have had gun control in place for many years, without becoming totalitarian regimes. The United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, and Japan, for example, cannot objectively be characterized as totalitarian regimes.

The Nazis deregulated the sale of rifles with the Reichswaffengesetz in 1938. However, this is a difficult example to characterize, particularly considering later developments.

Registration of firearms in some countries has led to confiscations of formerly legal firearms and the outlawing of the ownership of firearms to various degrees.

****Some oppose registration of guns or licensing of gun owners because if captured, the associated records would provide military invaders with the locations and identities gun owners, simplifying elimination of law-abiding (i.e. patriotic) resistance fighters. Location and capture of such records is a standard doctrine taught to military intelligence officers."

 

[kloppilt]

It doesn't look like gun control in Iraq caused poorly armed resistance to the occupation.

When s hit hits the fan and your country is invaded, previously owned legal firearms are probably the least effective of the firearms to be used. A typical civilian gun owner is not skillful enough to put up even a slight fight against an army.

So I wouldn't get to excited about that last argument against gun registration.

 

[1sttruck]

"The Nazis deregulated the sale of rifles with the Reichswaffengesetz in 1938. However, this is a difficult example to characterize, particularly considering later developments."

As you note the Nazis didn't 'outlaw firearms' as is often claimed. In our local paper I've seen WWII vets reply to such statements, where they ended up with large piles of civilian firearms in towns when they went thru the exercise to round them up. Having more guns wouldn't have done anything to prevent the rise of Nazi Germany, another common claim, as not only did the party have a lot of support, shooting Nazis resulted in events like Kristallnacht (speling ?). Still, civilians can give a good account of themselves as they know the area and can have numbers on their side. The Poles initially did well in the Warsaw uprising, but they were crushed after the Germans moved in reinforcements. Small numbers of fighters with apparent local support seem to be doing very well in Iraq, against what could be called the best armed and supported military force in history. The insurgents are trained, they have access to a wide range of weapons, but they don't seem to be regulars from other military forces. They do have a legacy of fighting world powers though, considering our support of similar forces against the Soviets.

 

[keith]

outrun

quote:

---

A number of countries have had gun control in place for many years, without becoming totalitarian regimes. The United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, and Japan, for example, cannot objectively be characterized as totalitarian regimes.

---

So when a law is passed that makes firearms illegal, from that point forwards, there are no guns in the hands of anyone in the country? I bet there are no illegal drugs too.

Maybe we need to pass a law that makes everyone rich and young and beautiful.

Growth in state power is often gradual, to the point that the citizens are "divided and conquered" and if they own guns or not is immaterial. When the government (federal + state + local) takes more than 50% of your paycheck, I think you can already say that the government has majority control over you, and it happened inch by inch. Some even welcome it.